The e-5 Jpeg experiment.

[43photo]

There are 2 reasons I shoot raw:

• Highlight recovery
• Noise reduction benefit

All other settings are applicable in JPEG, so there would really be no point to RAW (which truth be told is there because camera manufacturers were too lazy to make a perfect jpeg engine).

A RAW contains uncompressed data from the image and contains more color information than a compressed jeepeg file. A RAW file is better suitable for adjustments because more data is available. For making color corrections, curves, contrast etc etc, best results can be obtained when done to the RAW file directly. Big enlargements for big prints or other work when you need a big file, enlargements can best be made directly from the RAW file as well.

No matter how good OOC jeepegs are, there will always be a place for using RAw files but it depends on the end-usage of the file/ photo. I have made pictures on a congress for a clients and shooting jeepeg was perfect okee there.

--
Cheers,
Marin

 

[tinternaut]

This has been the case since Olympus launched the E-30. Raw gives you a little extra latitude but getting the level of DR, sharpness and quality of noise control Olympus already gives OOC is rarely worth the effort. I find I end up using the raw capture most often in PP when I've taken exposures as ISO 100.

--
Regards
J

Follow me on Twitter: http://twitter.com/jasonhindleuk
Blog: http://jasonhindle.wordpress.com



Photos: http://www.flickr.com/photos/jason_hindle

Gear in profile

 

[Locknut]

All other settings are applicable in JPEG, so there would really be no point to RAW (which truth be told is there because camera manufacturers were too lazy to make a perfect jpeg engine).

It has more to do with the available processing power in a camera. If you want your camera to be mains powered and have a fan to keep the CPU cool it would be possible to have in camera jpeg processing as good as LR3.

That said, the picture engines are rapidly improving, and they are dedicated hardware which gives a much better performance/power ratio than a general purpose CPU. Oly seem to be getting close to getting the best out of the sensor.

Chris

 

[Chris Mak]

The only real benefit for raw shooters here is the weaker AA but now you will have to deal with color Moire.

How do you know this? A guess?

Have you heard where the fine pixel handling/ moire software is handled? I was hoping it would be in the same engine the interpolates the Bayer pattern to color - which I guess generates the RAW values.

brent

This is an interesting question.

As a raw only shooter with a preference for my own raw converter, the E5 would lose all attraction if moire were handled in the jpeg engine, which undoubtedly won't be the case.

The weaker AA filter is a blessing, as far as I'm concerned, I've developed a real aversion against them.

Leica has a similar point of view: in their super Dslr the S2, they've abandoned the use of an AA filter all together, trusting software processing to handle the moire problem.

As the S2 outputs to DNG, it's out of the question that AdobeCR users have to suffer the moire.

Chris

 

[revio]

I suppose the left shot is shot at 6400 ISO, but with what camera, and what is the data of the right image?
Why did you not tell?

Given the e-5 sensor has the sane characteristics of the pen sensor ( that's what? Almost two years old?), given Olympus fantastic jpeg engine and further no doubt improved jpeg engine I want to see how many raw shooters looking at the e-5 may defend the camera quality comparing jpegs to other brand or even make a jpeg switch, mostly to justify their camera.

Come on, the E-5 will offer clean ISO 6400. I mean, how can you argue with quality like this?





--
MFBernstein

'Wilderness is not a luxury but a necessity of the human spirit.' - Ed Abbey

--
Aim & Frame ;-)
Shooting with Olympus E-620 with battery grip.Lenses are the 14-42mm & 40-150mm.

 

[Stu 5]

Given the e-5 sensor has the sane characteristics of the pen sensor ( that's what? Almost two years old?), given Olympus fantastic jpeg engine and further no doubt improved jpeg engine I want to see how many raw shooters looking at the e-5 may defend the camera quality comparing jpegs to other brand or even make a jpeg switch, mostly to justify their camera.

The only real benefit for raw shooters here is the weaker AA but now you will have to deal with color Moire. Most non Olympus converters Won't do that with the same sophistication Olympus does and btw the conversion times now almost triplicate due to the heavy duty color moire removal your computer now has to do (read workflow clog- if you don't believe this try converting a pen raw file). Oh and you lose any further Ilympus R&D in making the output special. Now you have the IQ of a pen.

It's not an issue at all with EPL-1 RAW files in Lightroom.

--
Raist3d (Photographer & Tools/Systems/Gui Games Developer)
Andreas Feininger (1906-1999) 'Photographers — idiots, of which there are
so many — say, “Oh, if only I had a Nikon or a Leica, I could make great
photographs.” That’s the dumbest thing I ever heard in my life. It’s
nothing but a matter of seeing, and thinking, and interest. That’s what
makes a good photograph.'

 

[dgrogers]

If the jpeg engine is near perfect, you won't buy the camera? The jpeg engine would have to be nearly perfect for you to not see an improvement with RAW processing.

If there's no noticable improvement in RAW handling and possibilities, I will probably not buy myself the E5.

 

[Jeff]

That is fantastic.

RAW is money lost for me. Workflow is so important to me with the amount of pics I have to process.

If the JPGS are great, and they are in Olympus land, I can use them with very little tweaking and they are saleable. Working on RAWs to get them where I want is just a money loser for me, and it doesn't gain me anything with the client.

I'm not a working photo professional, so defer completely to your experience. But I'm curious about your statement. For me, LR 3 works so well with RAW that I find little reason to bother with jpeg. Either way I'm going to import images, edit and archive as needed. The nice ones I'll futz with a bit, perhaps load to a gallery. If any go out the door, I'll export to the size and quality needed.

What I don't understand is where the extra overhead lies in this workflow due to raw. Wouldn't you have to do these things whether shooting raw or jpeg? There might be a little more time during the import, but that's all automated so I just let that go while I eat dinner.

Do you see it differently?

Jeff

http://www.flickr.com/photos/jck_photos/sets/
http://jeffkantor.zenfolio.com/

 

[Laszlo13]

Very impressive pics on that facebook link. Are they jpegs straight out of the camera? The 6400 looks like a bit excessive noise reduction, but as people said nice color and contrast. The iso 3200 and iso 1600 look really good.

 

[simpy]

If the jpeg engine is near perfect, you won't buy the camera? The jpeg engine would have to be nearly perfect for you to not see an improvement with RAW processing.

Ehmm... I think he means an improvement in the raw data compared to the E-3, not to JPEG.

 

[simpy]

This is an interesting question.

As a raw only shooter with a preference for my own raw converter, the E5 would lose all attraction if moire were handled in the jpeg engine, which undoubtedly won't be the case.

I don't think there's any other way of doing it. They'll have to combine it with the demosaicing, which creates the colors in the first place. The raw data is (luckily) saved before this stage.

The weaker AA filter is a blessing, as far as I'm concerned, I've developed a real aversion against them.

Leica has a similar point of view: in their super Dslr the S2, they've abandoned the use of an AA filter all together, trusting software processing to handle the moire problem.

Moire is only one (particularly disturbing) form of aliasing. Luminance aliasing will still be a problem, and there's no way to accurately filter it out. However, to most people, the resulting false detail looks like real detail. I'm not 100% sure where I stand on the AA filter.

Simon

 

[boggis the cat]

If you compare results from these two cameras it looks like ISO 800 on the E-PL1 is marginally better than ISO 3200 on the D3s. So the D3s has not quite two stops advantage.

Now, if the E-5 manages even one stop more performance then ISO 1600 on the E-5 will be marginally better than ISO 3200 on the D3s, closing the gap on the best available 135 sensor body to under a stop.

My HG lenses have an extra stop over those on Nikon. Hmm.

Should be interesting.

(But don't let me cramp the whiners -- please do sell your SHGs at fire-sale prices! )

 

[mfbernstein]

If you compare results from these two cameras it looks like ISO 800 on the E-PL1 is marginally better than ISO 3200 on the D3s. So the D3s has not quite two stops advantage.

Very funny. The 3-year old D3 has a 2 stop advantage. The D3s is a stop better.

--
MFBernstein

'Wilderness is not a luxury but a necessity of the human spirit.' - Ed Abbey

 

[boggis the cat]

If you compare results from these two cameras it looks like ISO 800 on the E-PL1 is marginally better than ISO 3200 on the D3s. So the D3s has not quite two stops advantage.

Very funny. The 3-year old D3 has a 2 stop advantage. The D3s is a stop better.

Looking at the samples on imaging resource, and using their "comparometer" widget, ISO 800 on the E-PL1 looks a little better than ISO 3200 on the D3s: less than two stops advantage to the D3s. Try it yourself.

However, ISO 3200 on the E-PL1 is a little worse than ISO 12800 and a bit better than ISO 25600 on the D3s: so less than three stops.

It comes down to how high up the ISO scale you go. (DPRs comparison shots show the same, too.)

These seem to be JPEG comparisons, though. The Nikon may pull away further with enough post-processing, assuming it has a lot more detail available in the RAW and the noise can be prevented from scaling with the detail.

 

[mfbernstein]

If you compare results from these two cameras it looks like ISO 800 on the E-PL1 is marginally better than ISO 3200 on the D3s. So the D3s has not quite two stops advantage.

Very funny. The 3-year old D3 has a 2 stop advantage. The D3s is a stop better.

Looking at the samples on imaging resource, and using their "comparometer" widget, ISO 800 on the E-PL1 looks a little better than ISO 3200 on the D3s: less than two stops advantage to the D3s. Try it yourself.

You're comparing the effectiveness of the JPEGs NR engine, not the actual noise. Useful for people who shoot only JPEGs and don't do their own NR. Not useful for anybody else.

These seem to be JPEG comparisons, though. The Nikon may pull away further with enough post-processing, assuming it has a lot more detail available in the RAW and the noise can be prevented from scaling with the detail.

Turn off NR on the RAW samples and you can see what the real difference is. Hint: the shot on the left is not the D3s.





--
MFBernstein

'Wilderness is not a luxury but a necessity of the human spirit.' - Ed Abbey

 

[Raist3d]

try a Pen raw file. And no, I am not complaining about true raw, because what you said isn't happening.

--
Raist3d (Photographer & Tools/Systems/Gui Games Developer)
Andreas Feininger (1906-1999) 'Photographers — idiots, of which there are
so many — say, “Oh, if only I had a Nikon or a Leica, I could make great
photographs.” That’s the dumbest thing I ever heard in my life. It’s
nothing but a matter of seeing, and thinking, and interest. That’s what
makes a good photograph.'

 

[Raist3d]

or maybe I just happen to know? Olympus has touted their JPEG color moire processing and know how in this area since the first Pen came out. (They do a really good job at it I must say).

But in the Olympus software side of running the processing time increases a lot, and in non Olympus RAW converters you get to deal with color moire in all its glory now.

Probably Adobe and a few others try some reasonable defaults but I don't see them doing the job Olympus does.. maybe trying LR 3.xx would be interesting there, but this all adds more processing time- it's not free.

--
Raist3d (Photographer & Tools/Systems/Gui Games Developer)
Andreas Feininger (1906-1999) 'Photographers — idiots, of which there are
so many — say, “Oh, if only I had a Nikon or a Leica, I could make great
photographs.” That’s the dumbest thing I ever heard in my life. It’s
nothing but a matter of seeing, and thinking, and interest. That’s what
makes a good photograph.'

 

[Raist3d]

--
Raist3d (Photographer & Tools/Systems/Gui Games Developer)
Andreas Feininger (1906-1999) 'Photographers — idiots, of which there are
so many — say, “Oh, if only I had a Nikon or a Leica, I could make great
photographs.” That’s the dumbest thing I ever heard in my life. It’s
nothing but a matter of seeing, and thinking, and interest. That’s what
makes a good photograph.'

 

[Raist3d]

is for JPEG.

--
Raist3d (Photographer & Tools/Systems/Gui Games Developer)
Andreas Feininger (1906-1999) 'Photographers — idiots, of which there are
so many — say, “Oh, if only I had a Nikon or a Leica, I could make great
photographs.” That’s the dumbest thing I ever heard in my life. It’s
nothing but a matter of seeing, and thinking, and interest. That’s what
makes a good photograph.'

 

[Raist3d]

that's why it's called a RAW file.

--
Raist3d (Photographer & Tools/Systems/Gui Games Developer)
Andreas Feininger (1906-1999) 'Photographers — idiots, of which there are
so many — say, “Oh, if only I had a Nikon or a Leica, I could make great
photographs.” That’s the dumbest thing I ever heard in my life. It’s
nothing but a matter of seeing, and thinking, and interest. That’s what
makes a good photograph.'